State Records
Committee Appeal No. 00-09

By this appeal, inmate Adrian
Hickey seeks an order compelling Appellee, State of Utah, Board of Pardons
& Parole (the "Board"), represented by Assistant Attorney General Sharel
S. Reber, to allow him to ". . . inspect and copy all public decisions
and rational sheets that the Bd. has issued to offenders that came before
them on parole hearings from 1-92 till present." Mr. Hickey requested
a fee waiver pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 63-2-203(4)(c). The Board denied
his request.

The State Records Committee,
having reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties, and having
heard testimony and argument, now issues the following Decision and Order.

STATEMENT
OF REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr. Hickey's appeal is denied.
The Committee does not dispute the fact that the Government Records Access
Management Act ("GRAMA") states that "[e]very person has the right to
inspect a public record free of charge and the right to take a copy of
a public record during normal working hours, subject to 63-2-203 and
63-2-204." Utah Code Ann. 63-2-201(1). GRAMA obviously does not, however,
affect or in any way modify the terms of an offender's incarceration.
Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Hickey is requesting transportation
and security to allow him to inspect the records in question, he should
direct that request to the Department of Corrections.

2. Mr. Hickey's right to inspect
and/or copy the records at issue is limited by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-203
and 63-2-204. Subsections (1) and (2) of 203 both provide for the assessment
of costs for either copying records or compiling them in a form other
than that normally maintained. Where compilation of records is required
to segregate public information from information that is not public, the
costs of staff time to summarize, compile, tailor, search, and retrieve
the record, as well as other administrative costs, may be charged. See
Utah Code Ann. 63-2-203(2)(a) and (b).

3. Mr. Hickey argues he should
not be charged for any of these costs because 203(4) provides that a
record "may" be fulfilled without cost where "the requester's legal rights
are directly implicated by the information on the record, and the requester
is impecunious." The term "may," according to its ordinary construction
"means permissive, and it should receive that interpretation unless such
a construction would be obviously repugnant to the intention of the Legislature
or would lead to some other inconvenience or absurdity." Crockett v. Crockett,
836 P.2d 818, 820 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). Accordingly, the Board is not
required to compile or copy these records for Mr. Hickey free of charge
even if it determined his legal rights were directly implicated by the
information in the records he seeks. Given the extraordinary amount of
records Mr. Hickey is requesting, and the amount of time and costs associated
to produce the requested records, the Board is not required to comply
with Mr. Hickey's request without charge.

4. In 1999 alone, the Board
made more than 11,000 decisions, and the cost of photocopying only the
1999 documents requested would be approximately $2,000.00. This does not
include the cost of employee time to research and copy all of the records
within the scope of Mr. Hickey's request.

5. For the foregoing reasons,
the Board's decision to deny Mr. Hickey's request for a fee waiver is
affirmed.

6. Counsel for Appellee has
represented that the Department of Corrections can provide the statistical
data implicitly required by the Utah Supreme Court's decision in Monson
v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1023 (Utah 1996). The Department of Corrections
has a statistician. Counsel for Appellee has represented that this person
has expressed a willingness to make reasonable efforts to cooperate with
Mr. Hickey in obtaining summary statistical information regarding previous
cases considered by the Board. Mr. Hickey may present this request to
the Department of Corrections if he chooses to do so.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT
Appellant's appeal is denied and the Board's decision is affirmed.

RIGHT TO
APPEAL

Either party may appeal this
Decision and Order to the district court. The petition for review must
be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this order.
The petition for judicial review must be a complaint. The complaint and
the appeals process are governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure
and by Utah Code Ann. 63-2-404 and 63-2-502(7) (2000). The court is
required to make its decision de novo. In order to protect its rights
on appeal, a party may wish to seek advice from an attorney.